Archive for October, 2012

The USA is being sandbagged by its billionaires, in particular its fossil fuel energy billionaires [Like those heirs known as the Koch brothers; See Note]. “Sandy” is the second hurricane to strike the North East USA in a year (after Irene last year). And it is the first hurricane to mix with a North-Easter:

Do Whatever To The Planet, The Planet Will Do Whatever To You

Sandy, a crossfire hurricane!

The USA’s sabotage of the Kyoto Protocol, the USA’s fossil fuel policy, and its encouragement of CO2 pollution by proxy in China are amounting to a deliberate disruption of the biosphere. A refined analysis (not done in this essay) shows that the USA has a Machiavellian interest to proceed that way (as does, say, Russia, or Canada). So it does make sense. Satanic sense. Plutocratic sense.

A hurricane is basically a Carnot engine with the warm ocean for its energy reservoir, and the stratosphere as its cold sink.

A strip of ocean 800 kilometers wide, & 3 degrees C (6F) above normal along the USA eastern seaboard was a direct enabler of hurricane Sandy. These days, 20 degree Celsius waters off the eastern seaboard passes for normal, and an already formed hurricane can survive with such temps. Sandy gained strength, though, because the temps were higher than that.

But not to worry: hundreds of millions of citizens of the USA will be told by their wealthy, much admired masters, that one cannot establish a direct causal relationship between the rise of CO2 and other industrial greenhouse gases and the big bad hurricane-northeaster.

Never mind that this rise of warm blanket gases is about 60% since 1750 CE. Indeed we went from 280 ppm of CO2 to 450 ppm of CO2 + CH4 + N20 + an entire zoo of other greenhouse gases, such as CFC-12, ( CFC-12, (CF2Cl2) diChlorodiFluoromethane is more greenhousey, overall, than N20, and is now banned; thanks to a weird low temperature chemistry, it devoured the ozone layer).

And never mind that the world is ruled by impossible-to-determine-with-pin-point-precision causality. Causality where it is the system that causes, and not the one cause, because, ultimately, there are no causes, but for waves. A wave is intrinsically vague (in French, “vague” means “Wave”). The Quantum says processes have no points.

George Lakoff points out in Global Warming Systemically Caused Hurricane Sandy: “Yes, global warming systemically caused Hurricane Sandy — and the Midwest droughts and the fires in Colorado and Texas, as well as other extreme weather disasters around the world. Let’s say it out loud, it was causation, systemic causation.

Systemic causation is familiar.Smoking is a systemic cause of lung cancer. HIV is a systemic cause of AIDS. Working in coal mines is a systemic cause of black lung disease. Driving while drunk is a systemic cause of auto accidents. Sex without contraception is a systemic cause of unwanted pregnancies.

There is a difference between systemic and direct causation.”

One can go further than that. Systemic causation is all over. Quantum Physics itself is systemic. That was its most baffling aspect. Whereas Classical Mechanics used direct causation, Quantum Mechanics did not. Quantum Physics is all about inferring the singular, from the whole.

Nor did the modern statistical mechanics advocated by the Austrian Ludwig Boltzmann. Boltzmann was immensely successful by average standards (he met with the emperor, and his first lecture in philosophy (!) more than filled up the largest hall at the university of Vienna, standing room only). However, he took badly asinine criticism of Mach and others, and committed suicide in 1906, just after Planck had published that postulating that energy was only sent by packets (“quanta”) provided with a process explaining the observed blackbody radiation, and the non occurrence of the “ultra violet catastrophe“.

Notice that Planck introduced the “Quanta of Light” (Lichtquanta”) as an unknown mechanism. The greatest strides in science are not made by connecting causality what is known to what is known. Great strides come from postulating a meta-phenomenon, something outside of the realm of what is known.The fundamental axiom of the Quantum is that it is processed by the entire system it can access (and partly penetrate, as it’s made of waves).

The fundamental practical axiom of the Quantum is that it is processed by the entire system it can access (and partly penetrate, as it’s made of waves).

Interestingly the greatest minds (including Einstein) had a very hard time to understand this. Even the Copenhagen School (Bohr, Heisenberg, etc.) did not really understand it fully.

If the Quantum itself is systemic, it’s not surprising that nature is systemic.

How is the Quantum systemic? Through the interference of waves. That is the fundamental axiom of Quantum Physics, the De Broglie axiom: any matter is guided by a wave whose frequency is determined by the momentum-energy of said matter (it’s then not too clear what’s matter, and what’s a wave, or a bump in the night, a charming difficulty of particle physics).

Waves can interfere constructively, or destructively, or somewhere in between. So think of systematic causation as such a thing. It makes sense, even in detail.

For example smoking causes cancer after the smoke interferes with inhaling, or not and various waves of diet and genetics and epigenetics, and immunological competency, and what not. So many causal waves give haphazard looking interference patterns. The same thing happens in a hurricane.

Ultimately there are no causes, but for waves interfering: that image applies extremely well to hurricanes. In particular Atlantic hurricanes originate as the spawning of easterly waves.

One thing is sure, though: if Wall Street keeps on going the way it does, it will drown, and not just for 6 hours. As the Rolling Stones have it in “Jumping Jack Flash””

A two degree Celsius average temperature rise will certainly insure this. Why? Because at the maximum of the last glaciation, 20,000 years ago, the temperature on the Northern Atlantic (center of the problem) was only 5 degrees Celsius less than now. Yes, five Celsius. So two degrees Celsius over the entire planet can make a giant difference: we would go back, quasi instantaneously, to the situation, 4 million years ago. Most species will not resist to the shock, oxygen production itself may be impacted.

Not realizing this has been a giant mistake of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (Of course the IPCC acted that way, that is, erroneously, because only then could it get support from the governments! Corruption is a many varied thing…)

The seas will rise dramatically very soon, because the system being set in motion is highly non linear, like an avalanche… or a storm surge (which practically can take the exact appearance of a tsunami!) True, before an avalanche, a tsunami, or a storm surge, or an earthquake, nothing much is going on, and the cicadas are busy singing. It would be wiser to learn swimming.

Will awareness be born in a cross-fire hurricane and ma [Wall Street] being howled at in the driving rain? Or will the gas be all right now, in a spasm of collective hypnosis?

Its leaders make no mystery that they want to make the USA again the number one producer of fossil fuels. Cutting off mountains to produce coal to export to the American factories in China, fracking the wilds all over, buying off farmers with dollars, chasing them out with fumes and foul waters. No problem. That’s why Sandy paid a visit: to remind the two plutocrats running for residents of the White House, that they are nothing.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

Note: sand•bag n. A bag filled with sand and used as ballast, in the formation of protective walls against a flood, or as a weapon.

v.tr. 1. To put sandbags in or around.

2. To hit with a sandbag.

3. Slang

a. To treat severely or unjustly.

b. To force by crude means; coerce: sandbagged us into cleaning up their mess.

c. To downplay or misrepresent one’s ability in a game or activity in order to deceive (someone).

The president of the USA is usually presented as the “most powerful man in the world“. This is disinformation. “Weakest leader in the world” is more like it. The presidency of the USA is a weak office. Why? Because not only is the business of the USA, business, but the government of the USA is business.

I have been making the progressive case against Obama‘s policies. For four years (minus a week). Before he became president, Obama prevented Hank Paulson to force banks to cram down house mortgages. Result:

Plutocrat Paulson, Bush’s Treasury Secretary, ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs, understood that banks had to give something commensurate in exchange for the enormous public money they were getting. Otherwise, it was theft. Obama did not want to understand that.

Obama spent the next four years singing the praises of bankers, banksters, and financial criminals (latest in 2012; an ode to love for Buffet, famous for destroying Greece, in Newsweek, and Dimon, head of JP Morgan, on “The View”). Not cramming down the mortgages allowed the banks to keep on having “tiers one” capital they did not have, thus keeping on with their derivatives’ casino, starving the real economy, while getting 8,000 billions of “monetary base”, from the Fed (that forced the EU to join the game in 2011).

I am not focusing here on other grave ethical failings, such as worldwide killing by death panel ordered drones, a new high for the devil, a very dangerous precedent for fascist regimes.

That establishment of a “Terminator” like world is comparable, as an ethical jump, to the jump accomplished when extermination camps came to be viewed as a measure of progress.

That many “democrats” agree to killing people by robots without due process reminds me of German Socialists approving of Hitler because Adolf called himself a socialist. Just as Hitler focused on “will” (he was singularly deprived of it after 1942), Obama focused on “navigation” as an overall metaprinciple (now his “navigation without an ethical compass has led him into the shoals of public opinion). Being a full human leader requires to focus on full human ethics, not naked procedures (will, social navigation), as a suitable end to political means.

I am focusing here on the economic side, and the ethics connected to it. As Matt Stoller puts it:

“Under Bush, economic inequality was bad, as 65 cents of every dollar of income growth went to the top 1 percent. Under Obama, however, that number is 93 cents out of every dollar. That’s right, under Barack Obama there is more economic inequality than under George W. Bush.

And if you look at the chart above, most of this shift happened in 2009-2010, when Democrats controlled Congress. This was not, in other words, the doing of the mean Republican Congress. And it’s not strictly a result of the financial crisis; after all, corporate profits did crash, like housing values did, but they also recovered, while housing values have not.

This is the shape of the system Obama has designed. It is intentional, it is the modern American order…”

The plutocracy is amplified by the desire of government officials, who are typically in the middle class, to join the 1% (who do not just live much better, but safer, with better… local government and services).

The third debate Obama-Romney was uneventful. After his huge win in the first debate, when Romney presented himself as the candidate with a plan, while Obama sounded like an apologetic butler, seemingly worried about blemishes on the floor, Romney needed just to not make mistakes.

The news though, as far as I am concerned, were made by Obama, when he brazenly announced, in passing, out of the blue, that “sequestration is not going to happen“.

This was an astounding statement. The problem is not just that sequestration is the law. And that it is becoming effective in eight weeks or so. The problem is that:

Sequestration is a liberal’s heaven: it cuts down a huge chunk of the defense budget, and remove the Bush(-Obama) tax cuts for the rich. The deficit and (some of) the inequity disappear overnight.

Why would Obama be against it? If Obama is the “liberal”? (“Liberal” that is left, democratic, in USA semantics, the opposite of European semantics.) Why would Obama want to denigrate a law he helped passed, and that institutes a liberal’s heavens?

Is Obama a double agent?

Is he not a liberal then, and all the hysterical liberals who want us to vote for him just naive sheep rushing behind their shepherd as they enter the slaughterhouse?

So Obama is losing that election. If not in the votes, surely with his head. Surely losing his second term, if any, before he got started. Lost his head in an accident called democracy.

I forecasted as much little bit less than 4 years ago. Surely the old liberal Obama face had lost to the neoconservative Obama reality, immediately after he was elected. How did I know this?

The first thing is that Obama was mesmerized by Larry Summers, the financial derivatives’ enabler. Summers is a notoriously, officially delirious misogynistic bully, who, knowing no advanced science or mathematics, claimed women were genetically inferior at it (there are plenty of top women in science and math, up to the very highest level, for example Emmy Noether, who, sponsored by the mathematical giants Hilbert and Klein was spurned forever at Göttingen. Finally Hilbert had to get angry, and point that: the faculty is not a toilet. Noether’s work was very deep and some ot it is used for the very basics of quantum Field Theory).

The day after his election as president, Obama went to work in the offices of a hedge fund in Chicago. November 5, 2008. That was an astounding fact. Hedge funds and their financial derivatives were front and central causative in the 2008 financial crisis. It was as if Obama understood nothing, nor did his advisers. Or maybe he wanted to make a blatant wink to the plutocracy, to the greatest sharks of the financial world, that he approved of their world, entirely, front and center, for all to see.

His apparently lobotomized supporters were completely clueless and celebrated all over like nice drunk maniacs. They are still celebrating, four years later. Michelle Obama asks: “Are you in? Tell Barack you are in!”. Simpler than that, no way: politics reduced to sexual allusions, or something equally primitive. We are in? Into what? Masochism? With Michelle as whip yielding dominatrix? OK, she obvioulsy fits the role quite well.

What hope could we have, when Obama embraced evil, and his supporters did high fives all over? With hedge funds’ managers?

So now, here we are, four years later; most of the money went to banks. 8 trillions (mostly from Quantitative Easing, which was used to “reimburse” TARP!). Total deficit added: 4 trillions, most of it from tax cuts (to the rich!), not from investment. The so called Bush tax cuts were legislated religiously by 4 year by the democratic Congress (led by plutocrat Pelosi).

Why don’t progressive call those cuts the Pelosi-Obama tax cuts for the rich? Because we are not rich, and it’s safer not to tell the truth?

Here are two comments of mine that the New York Times had the kindness to designate as “picks” (although most of my comments on Krugman’s blog are censored; I view Krugman’s policies as causative of much of the Obama’s faulty socio-economic program.)

***

The first comment was subsequent to Krugman’s editorial in which he said: “The U.S. economy finally seems to be recovering in earnest…it will still take years to restore full employment — and it has been a very long time coming. Why has the slump been so protracted?

The answer — backed by overwhelming evidence — is that this is what normally happens after a severe financial crisis.”

In other words Krugman still understands too little, too late. I sent this:

There is a fundamental employment crisis. There is an ecological crisis, without precedent in 65 million years, that puts the biosphere in question (and gasoline above $4 a gallon).

What is happening right now is just the beginning of the beginning of said crisis. Obama was called in to deliver change, and, thus stop the steady march behind the same old errors. However, a chorus of sycophants and plutocratic servants insisted nothing much had to be done… And Obama went along.

Right now the USA has a huge, primary deficit (Italy does not have a primary deficit), and the debt to GDP ratio of the Federal government is above 100% (only Italy and Greece, and of course Japan have higher debt to GDP numbers). Many on the pseudo-left say it does not matter. How come it matters anywhere else? And what is the plan to deal with those?

Guess what? The public wants change again, any change, as long as it’s not the same old same old: all the money to the banks, none for commoners.

***

Not surprisingly, Mitt Romney is claiming to be the one to bring change. The worst being is that he may right, frighteningly enough. It’s easier to bring more change than no change.

Krugman and company claims Obamacare will change everything, but I just don’t believe it, as it was written by the sharks themselves, the health care plutocrats, and it does not set-up what they fear and all other advanced countries have: a public health care core.

The markets have broken national sovereignty, all over. Obamacare eschewed that lesson, all too long.

The last case being rolled out this week: Mr. Clean, Close-To-The People, humble Prime Minister of China, the guy with the glasses and the modest white shirt, turns out, according to the New York Times, and not to my surprise, to have accumulated, through various members of his family, including his elderly mother, a fortune of no less than 2.7 billion dollars.

The dictatorship of the People has turned into the dictatorship of the Plutocrats. The New York Times just got censored in China for pointing out that this supposedly clean PM was a plutocrat hiding behind the rest of his family, a trick massively used in the USA! Ironically the New York Times censors me about denouncing plutocracy, and gets censored in turn, for the same reason! What goes around, comes around, just like hurricane-north-eastener…

***

Krugman again: “Mitt Romney … has a five-point plan to restore prosperity. And some voters, alas, seem to believe what he’s saying. So President Obama has now responded with his own plan, a little blue booklet containing 27 policy proposals. How do these two plans stack up?

Mr. Romney is faking it. His real plan seems to be to foster economic recovery through magic… So, is Mr. Obama offering an inspiring vision for economic recovery? No, he isn’t. His economic agenda is relatively small-bore — a bunch of modest if sensible proposals rather than a big push… The point is that America is still suffering from an overall lack of demand, the result of the severe debt and financial crisis that broke out before Mr. Obama took office.”

I sent the following comment (also a NYT pick, as that august paper seems to be about two minds about me!)

Most probably, Obama’s “plan” is too little, too late. Progressives ought to have protested strongly as soon as Obama had selected his economic team, led by financial derivatives advocate Larry Summers. But they did not.

According to the sycophants of the democratic party a la Obama, there were at least 14 weeks with a supermajority in the Senate and 4 years of majority in Congress (in 2012, the French Socialists have taken enormous decisions in 14 weeks, including 75% tax margin and a financial transaction tax!)

So Obama had, and has nearly no ideas, in any case, very small, that’s why he could not do anything with his supermajority, not even removing Bush’s tax cuts. And the lack of ideas is throughout the progressive establishment. Maybe Romney’s plan is impossible and scary (it sure looks this way). However it does something that allowed Obama to be elected four years ago: it makes people dream of change.

The main idea is to push Research and Development massively. Take an example: Infra Red Photo Voltaics. They exist already in the lab, but are extremely inefficient. Having them would augment enormously the efficiency of photovoltaics (I think about 40% of the sun’s energy comes as infrared). Make a crash program. A fundamental, basic research crash program. Not something perverse like Solyandra, Space X, Tesla, Fisker, A123.

And protect the basic research by extremely fierce protection of Intellectual Property.

***

WILL DO-NOTHING PRESIDENT SNATCH VICTORY FROM JAWS OF DEFEAT?

We don’t know what Obama wanted to do, when he embarked on his exalted adventure. As a candidate, four years ago, he ran in full compatibility with this site. I was happy. However Obama governed, mostly, against this site, breaking my sensitive little heart. I cried a river, and now the seas are rising faster than ever.

So it is with human destinies: one wants to do one thing, and often one ends up doing the opposite. For the best reasons, which turned, in the fullness of time, to be the worst.

Obama’s main metaprinciple, as explained in his best selling memoirs, and re-iterated since, is “navigation“, rather than haughtier principle. However a civilizational leader does not just navigate, but creates. When an elected leader is backed up by serious philosophers, such as Pericles, that gives results (the “open society“) one remembers.

Obama wanted to become a president who did great things. But that was in total contradiction with his navigational metaprinciple. Great leaders don’t just navigate, they force destiny.

What Obama implemented, in practice, was Bush III (except in foreign policy, where, by espousing Franco-Britannia in Libya he has been much smarter, and sharply opposed to the treacherous Bush). we do not want to be naive like Paul Krugman: “Think instead about the 45 million Americans who either will or won’t receive essential health care, depending on who wins on Nov. 6. “

Krugman is rich, he lives in a mansion, he shuttles all the time first class around the world, he is big time. It did not dawn on his teeny tiny brain that soon hundreds of millions of “Americans” will not be able to afford that health care, because, like the captain of the Titanic refused to think about icebergs, the Oblablablists refused to think about cost. the reform that mattered for health care was cost, first: make health care cheaper, then the state could afford for everybody to have it. For that one just had to allow the (three) public health care systems to bargain with private providers, fully (as in other countries).

In “the Progressive Case Against Obama”, Stoller argues, as I long have, that the election of Romney would wake up the opposition to the Bush-Obama-Romney order exemplified by Krugman: 8,000 billions to the banks, and the likes of Elon Musk (Tesla, Space X), 4,000 billions of supplementary debt in 4 years.

It is not a question of being anti-capitalist. Civilization is entangled with capital. No capital, no civilization. That’s why I distinguish between “capitalism” & plutocratic phenomenon

The progressive left got completely anesthetized by their brown guy’s accession to power. It was a case of racist intoxication:”Look Obama is black, he does miracles!” In truth, Obama is not even black, but brownish. The progressive left did not help Obama, the USA or the world by falling asleep, or going crazy in the Oblabla personality cult. Quite the contrary.

Now the den of thieves, Wall Street is getting a foretaste of its own medicine, by threatening to go under water, what it wanted all along, in its secret desire for self destruction. A North Easter is meeting a hurricane. Never happened before.

Obama’s policy, just as that of all his predecessors, and Romney’s is hell bound to make the USA stay on top, as the world’s greatest CO2 polluter (much of China works for the USA). The latest idea from the American hyper exploitation mood, is to export USA coal to China. Washington and New York will keep on going that way, and only them going deep under water will stop them, apparently. Admittedly, the progress of hurricane Sandy is a good sign of the Biblical flooding to come. Probably too complicated for their ethically deprived tiny brains to comprehend.

But there is a much better case to be made than Obama’s ignominious defeat. Unfortunately it would depend upon another “Obama” than the one we got to know, suddenly rising from his ashes.

In that progressive and optimistic case, Obama wins, and then a suddenly liberal Obama comes to his senses, and refuses to negotiate about “sequestration”. By January 1, 2013, a progressive paradise would dawn. The Bush-Obama tax cuts would disappear, and there would be savage cuts in defense. The rich would be taxed a bit more, the deficit would disappear overnight.

Even the hurricane-North-Easter “Frankenstorm” is giving an occasion for Obama to pose as commander in chief. Obama saved by god. The least god could do, after being evoked so many times. Hey, maybe the hurricane could wake up the citizens of the USA to the fact that they have been ecological pigs.

Of all the possibilities, that is what I would prefer. By far. That, and Obama sequestering the right in its own contradictions.

The First Thing About Truth; Digital Truth Is Relative, Quantum Truth, Absolute:

There are theories of truth all over. But the first thing about truth, ought to be, that it is described in a discourse. Yet all and any digital discourse and digital context is incomplete, thus a lie. Why incomplete? Because it’s a finite set of symbols.

Berbers Are Not Arabs, Their Civilization Is Much Older

Can we describe an ocean with five rocks? Of course not.

Can there be truth described by something more general than a digital discourse? The truth of love? The truth of a picture? Yes. Do they boil down to just one principle?

You see, ultimately, the Quantum computes all over, according to the picture. The picture of what is available (to matter wave penetration). That’s precisely why we can’t describe the Quantum right now, well enough. We communicate our thoughts digitally, finitely. Way out? First forget about a monolithic discourse, and about coherence. Quantum says coherence is partial, and when expressed, localized, it decoheres.

***

Celebrity Leadership: Omnipresent, Vulgar.

We are in a world led by… celebrities. The politicians are celebrities, the Nobels are celebrities, the writers, the musicians…

CEOs in the USA are much taller than in Europe (even when comparing to countries where the average size of the Europeans is actually greater). This means the appearance of greatness (as measured in inches) is a more dominant criterion in the USA. That fact extends to most American politicians.

An important part of the leadership of the USA is determined by what beautiful trophies they make, just like prized fish. They are all lined up like dead fish on a plutocrat’s deck.

So how does a celebrity think? A celebrity is crowd founded. A celebrity will tend to think according to what will make him or her thrive, as a celebrity. That means according with what is looking favorably upon by the masses. In other words, “the common people, multitude, crowd, throng”. In Latin: the vulgus.

That means that celebrity thinking is intrinsically vulgar.

***

Celebritism Is A Form Of Fascism:

And it shows! Ultimately, celebretism appeals to the fascist instinct. The crowd follows the leader, and surrenders its mind to the mind of the leader. In a prehistoric troop, that means 50 people thinking according to the one.

In other words, 1/50 of normal human intelligence is in charge: war can be engaged.

Nowadays, that can mean 1,300,000,000 people thinking according to the one.

In other words, 1/1,300,000,000 normal human intelligence is in charge: the most grotesque war can be engaged (see Hitler and his Germans who engaged a war, just because they were sure to lose it!)

This adoration of celebrities is enforced by metaprinciples pervading culture and society. For example the Brits are vassals of some plutocrats they venerate, the so called “Royals”. In particular, they do not have allodial control of real estate property (they don’t know what it means, so they feel OK). In particular, when obvious abuse occur, such as Tony Blair making 50 million in a year (an obvious payback by plutocrats), they just shrug. Or Tony Blair doing exactly what godfather Murdoch told him to do about Iraq (they had complicated personal relationship) is also resolved by shrugging.

It shows up in a personal way. A famous celebrity at the BBC was abusing children (at least 20 and counting). But he met heads of states, the Pope, was knighted, revered… A 14 year girl meets him, in BBC set-up. Within seconds he sexually abuses her. Now a mature adult, she said she could not do a thing, because he was a celebrity, and she was nothing.

Celebrities such as Carter, Clinton, Summers, Buffet, have abused entire nations. And then there are those families or institutions which are famous, when they should be infamous. The Royals, the Bushes, Esso, IBM, Thyssen… They hide in plain sight, naked in their gross obscenity of immense riches acquired with filth galore. But, if one is in the West, one can say this only about Putin (and the KGB, which used to be the NKVD, and is now the FSB, Just as Standard OIl of New Jersey, after being one of many Hitler’s best friends, became Esso,and now Exxon…).

The problem is celebritism itself, a form of intellectual fascism, enable by the fact that thinking by oneself requires lots of energy. And that the passions that allow to resist Crowd Founding are taught, systematically, as those shall be resisted. Starting with anger. And pride. And resisting herding and goose stepping.

Just as people become celebrities, some ideas become celebrities too.

In many European countries, people will tell you, one ids more free, childless. But it’s a bit like claiming one is more free as a mussel. True in a sense, but…

***

In Defense Of Procreation:

Some people who have no children say they want to stay free, keep on pleasing themselves with such passions as travelling (more of a European thing: Americans tend to not take vacations before retirement).

And yet, is there a better pleasure than enjoying parenting a good child? Is there a more mind opening travel?

What childless people who have no studied the situation exhaustively do not know is that having a child makes one travels in hormonal dimensions one did not have before. It’s not just about seeing a new landscape, just like a thousand landscape before. It’s not just about landing on a new planet.

It’s about experiencing a new universe, unimagined before.

When life extension becomes a reality, having children will more rare, and thus become much more of a luxury.

***

No Civilization, But Civilization:

Some have talked about the clash of civilizations. But, in the grander scheme of things, there is only one civilization.

In particular, attempts at cutting the Indo-European area in two pieces are not wrong but ignorant. The distinction between “Orient” and “Occident” was something Rome invented, and Rome used, and Rome rejected. Those who think very independent of the west to use are just aping the Romans, unbeknownst to themselves…

I represented the Tifinagh alphabet in the beginning. It’s basically twice older than Arabic (which was also derived from the Phoenician alphabet). North African genes were analyzed. They were found to be mostly the same as those found in (the rest of)… Europe.

We count in 60 minutes hours, because base 60 was useful for the tremendous astronomical computations in Mesopotamia to determine the seasons, planting, and the floods of the great rivers. that at least a millennium before Rome.

There is an astounding prolongation of systems of thought throughout the ages. actually, for about 10,000 years, civilization has proven to be a continual construction, an initial condition onto itself (in the differential equation sense).

One can argue that aside from the central, Middle World civilization, there were three other centers: China, Black Africa, and the Americas. The only one that was truly independent of the rest was the American civilization, and it was devastated.

***

Demand What?

Economists love to talk about “demand“, as if it were a well defined concept.

However, what are we supposed to demand? More Korean cars? More Korean TVs? More smart phones made in China? If we talk about demanding more health care, or more education, the process is more complicated. And can we demand less investment and stimulus in financial derivatives, and less hopeless spending in Afghanistan?

In a world where choice is, in an important geophysical and biological sense shrinking, demand has to be made more demanding.

We have to demand an inhabitable planet, with the creature comforts it used to have, even very recently.

***

Gloo Gloo And Geoengineering Will Not Work Without Thermonuclear Reactors:

As the planet is shocked into a high CO2 world, strange things are happening. For example Antarctic sea ice has been spreading, which is counter-intuitive (since Arctic ice is shrinking so fast, it’s imaginable there will be none within five summers!)

Antarctica sea ice has spread due to higher winds caused by warming. That (part of) Antarctica is cooling is not true in my opinion. Snowfall is augmenting, as it is in the Himalaya, but that is to be expected from warming.

Because of non linear effects it all could go very fast. And no geoengineering short of thermonuclear reactors (to freeze the CO2), or a nuclear winter (soon to be fetched), will change anything… If one keeps on refusing putting giant taxes on burning fossils…

What I am saying is that other suggested “geo-engineering” will not work.

And think about it: geo-engineering on Mars looks insurmountable, with present technology. So why should it be easier on Earth?

The analogy is smarter than it looks: the total mass of the medium to be changed on Mars is a tenuous atmosphere. The equivalent system on earth is made of the Earth’s atmosphere, plus its oceans. This is roughly 60 earth atmosphere. However the atmosphere of Mars is 25 teratonnes. The atmosphere of Earth is 5,148 teratonnes, 200 times more. So, multiplying this by 60, or, at least fifty (if one restricts to the volume affected by Earth’s greatest sea currents), one sees that influencing the terrestrial atmosphere-thalassosphere requires an effort 10,000 greater on Earth than Mars.

So there is no way out, but mitigation. That is, conservation.

Why thermonuclear reactors? Because controlled thermonuclear fusion will provide us with giant amounts of energy, very cheaply (once it’s fully mastered, which will take a while, even after the first generations of civilian thermonuclear reactors come on line, as they will use primitive, not super clean fusion. Whatever we do with geoengineering, it will require giant amounts of energy.

For Mars, it will help to crash comets (they are full of solid water) onto the planet. A few comets crashed into the icecaps (my idea) would release much water, and much CO2. More bang for the buck. Those soft (H2O + CO2 ice is elastic) collisions would warm and humidify the planet quickly, through non linear amplification (95% 0f Mars’ air is CO2 so the planet enjoys a strong greenhouse, which is much greater when it’s inclined 40 degrees on the elliptic, as happens sometimes).

Deviating comets in large numbers will require significant energy. That’s an energy that we absolutely do not have now: for the impacts to work best, they will have to come over the icecaps at shallow angle and low speed. that can be done, only after deviating the comets considerably. We are talking nuclear tugs here.

For Earth, what I am thinking of is that condensating the CO2 out of the air will require giant refrigeration (or massive industrial weathering of special rocks), but, meanwhile, we could separate the heating of atmosphere and oceans from the melting of the icecaps by protecting them. That would allow to separate the heating problem from much of the rising seas problem. Whatever we do in the way of geoengineering, even covering ice with reflecting substances, all over Greenland and Antarctica, will require huge energy. And that energy will have to be cheap for the thing to be feasible.

And that, my friends, is enough of the truth to see that we need much more advanced technology, if we demand survival for the young ones we happen to know, and the positive values we hold dear…

I disagreed strongly with G.W. Bush’s lies and folly in Iraq. Presto, my web site disappeared from USA search engines. I was ridiculed by Silicon Alley “friends”: information wants to be free, search engines were beyond any suspicion, did not care about ants such as me. Fast forward to 2012: Google hissed it will be “constrained” to “no longer reference French websites“. Admire the hypocrisy. So much for not manipulating searches. Here is the object of Google’s ire:

Google Slaying French Culture Minister: Brains & Style.

Aurélie Filippetti ministers to advanced culture.

“I’m a little surprised by the tone of this correspondence, which is akin to a threat. You do not deal with a democratically elected government through threats.” Warns the French Culture Minister.

What do Google guys know about democracy?

Aurélie Filippetti has (basically) a PhD in classical literature, published books translated in many languages, is a Member of Parliament, and France’s Culture Minister. In France the culture ministry is traditionally very important. It covers, among others, the information technology ministry. Filippetti, the daughter of an emigrant miner, belongs to a class vastly superior to the mostly uneducated, unelected Silicon Valley filthy rich conspirators.

French newspaper publishers asked the government in September for a bill compelling search engines, to pay them each time a user reads an article by clicking through to their websites.

Let’s go the crux of the matter: Google makes money out of clicks (from advertizing revenue). Click to what? Authors. Are these authors Google employees? No, Google does not pay those authors. So Google is making profits from the work of others that it does not pay for.

Google makes money by using other people’s work, without compensation. When an owner does not pay people for the work that makes him rich, it’s slavery. It’s the first order definition of slavery.

Europe has seen that movie before. More than 1,000 years ago. Bathilde queen of the Franks, herself an ex-escaped slave, outlawed making a slave (“servus“) of any citizen of the Imperium Francorum (to be rebaptized 150 years later the “Renovated Roman Empire”).

Nevertheless, in the following centuries, many a freeman came “to be a slave” (“servire“) through force or necessity. Sometimes freeholders or allodial owners were intimidated into dependency by the greater physical or legal force of a local plutocrat or magnate. Crop failure, a war or brigandage left a farmer unable to survive on his own. A bargain was struck with a plutocrat, or mighty knight (lord of a manor, to pay for the very expensive weapons and training).

In exchange for protection from the knight, service was required, in cash, produce or with labor, or a combination thereof. These bargains were formalized in a ceremony known as “bondage” in which a serf placed his head in the lord’s hands, similar to the ceremony of homage where a vassal placed his hands between those of his overlord (or kissed his boot). Such people came to be known as “serfs”. “Serf” was a modification of the Latin word for slave, just like the condition of bondage was different, but also viewed as related to slavery. Being a serf was hereditary, but could be exited by staying away thirty days (during which time the lord could hunt down his recalcitrant serf).

England was about 20% slaves until 1066 CE, when the conquering Franks outlawed slavery.

The key enabling concept here is intimidation. Very rich persons intimidated the population into plutocracy. Very rich people, or great plutocratic institutions, had attributed themselves, without any constitutional basis, illegitimate powers, through the sheer power of intimidation. An unintimidated serf who fled to a city, taking the law in his own hands, was thereafter free.

Finally, central governments, unintimidated, grabbed back those illegitimate powers. It took a while, and the central government had to play dirty: Philippe IV Le Bel broke both the Templars and the Papacy shortly after 1300 CE, but it’s only with the mighty efforts of Louis XI and his daughter, the regent queen Anne de France, that France got definitively united as a country under an effective, all mighty national government, shortly before the official discovery of the Americas. (Thus inaugurating the archtypical modern nation-state.)

Google’s slave masters, apparently unaware of 30 centuries of rather ferocious history, are trying to intimidate the French Republic into submission. Not knowing, from full ignorance of the great classics, that few passions give more pleasure to the French and their Gallic ancestors than to put a shining armor on, condemn, and charge evil doers.

Here is a friend of mine, the USA born Amna Shiekh, giving us what all too many in Wall Street admiring circles will consider to be the obvious argument:

“The difference between these French people who are crying thievery and myself – I am GRATEFUL that Google provides a service allowing my websites to be found through keywords…. At no cost to me. My websites would have no chance of being found otherwise. There is a service being provided here. And if you don’t want to contribute to it, then don’t cry when it’s taken away? Very simple!”

Patrice Ayme: “Me me me me me me me me me, or, as Mick Jagger would have it in Gloom & Doom: meeeeeeeeeee is, indeed, the best explanation most people have found, under most circumstances. A generalization of me me me me me me, is us us us us us, also known as nationalism. Being GRATEFUL to the Lords is also most wise, for the commoners, and those who, like worms, like to burrow underground. Slave masters were, are, also providing a service, they always have been, always do. Many love to be punished, it makes them feel important.

Around 1800 CE, it has been evaluated that three quarters of humankind lived in some form of slavery.

The ubiquitousness of slavery explains much of the submitted, and impoverished state, most of the world was in, until recently. (By comparison the French Revolution of 1789 made most French allodial owners, that is, supreme sovereigns on their land… which is still not the case in Great Britain (all land is the Crown’s, all Brits are…vassals)… nor in the USA (“eminent domain” being rather relaxed there)).

Nobody is advocating doing without search engines. They existed well before Google. (And, besides having Sequoia Capital and their associates backing up Google, I do not see what Google brought to search that did not exist before). Because searches are manipulated, search engines are a matter of national security. The fact that an obviously plutocratic organization has achieved a world monopoly on searches is obviously a worry for democracy.

When Francia outlawed slavery, in 655 CE, it was to make the median individual more potent. Not because it was easy, but because it short-circuited plutocracy, the accumulation of ever greater wealth, be it through unfair means (Google, Buffet), or even by any means (hence the Frankish Salian law equalitarianism, preventing the growth of extreme power for the few).

Outlawing slavery reconstituted the mood and power of the early Roman republic, and allowed to rise huge republican armies when the so far undefeated Arab and Berber armies invaded France in 721 CE.

In democracy, humanity in full is in power. That makes democracy, all else been equal, the mightiest social organization in brains and war.

Plutocracy says only an oligarchy of individuals, emotions and ideas are in power. It’s a form of mutilation, parasitism, a malaria of the mind.

Humanity in full is more powerful, and that is why the Franks were able to break the “Germani”, the Arab Muslim invaders (721 CE-750 CE), the Avars, the Vikings, and, with their descendant regimes (such as England, or Spain) conquer much of the world militarily, and all of it, philosophically (at least formally: even Al Assad leads a “republic”). Nowadays the main Frankish philosophical drive is basically the United Nations Charter. Outlawing slavery is its core.

Slavery is why the management of Greco-Roman civilization by the Greco-Romans failed, and why management transferred to the Franks, and their simple idea of synchronizing polity and humanity, by outlawing it. (In other words, on a giant civilizational scale, what Obama failed to do on his teeny tiny scale, as he left the slavery inducing Wall Street of 2008in power, throughout his fateful reign, and its symbols are Summers and Geithner… but I digress, although reckoning is at hand…)

Amna Shiekh: “Yes, I do think the French who agree with you are crying me me me me me me me – though I don’t think it’s very effective. Maybe when we were five years old this tactic worked quite well….your slave master analogy doesn’t work either. Google isn’t providing a necessary means to live (food, shelter, safety, etc.) that forces me to agree with them…they are not offering something I cannot easily refuse….in other words, your analogy fails.”

Patrice Ayme: Living without the Internet (and its searches) is becoming increasingly impossible. So Google provides with a necessary service.

Google does not pay the people they use to make money, for their work. That’s the definition of slavery. You point out that you profit. Some, no doubt, profit. From slavery some always profited, otherwise slavery would not have come to be. In Rome, some companies specialized in catching escaped slaves, and others in torturing, or executing slaves. Such companies no doubt cried a river when the Franks made their work unlawful. It’s not because you can easily refuse to partake in murder, than murder should not be illegal.

Google whined that their business model was threatened with extinction if France went on with making them pay taxes. Well, too bad. If Google charged for air, and refused to pay taxes, it should be driven out of business too.

French newspaper publishers asked the French government to intervene against Google in September. Newspapers, journalists, editorialists create ideas (hopefully).

But, fundamentally, Google creates… nothing independently of that substrate of ideas it helps search for, but did not create. (I know Google goes around with cars, taking pictures; but so doing is not creating ideas; if Google did not do it, volunteers certainly would do so, it’s very easy with modern technology.)

This is the general problem with the world economy right now: many manipulators have seized command, when they create nothing fundamental. They are like the Duchess of Cambridge, the Duchesse of Hypocrisy, going around, busy making their celebrity and parasitism fundamental, thanks to their symbiosis with a perverted established order of damnation, dragging not just civilization, but the entire biosphere, into oblivion.

Google leaders should have realized that, by being the world’s largest search engine, they had a moral duty, a fiduciary position, and it was only cautious corporate governance, to behave as an exemplary corporate world citizen. When Google threatened to boycott all and any French sites, it showed, not just its ugly nature, but the fact that it imagines itself as a dangerous, all powerful monopoly. Of course, it will become something of this sort, only if the French Republic let it do as it pleases (we do not expect anything from the White House, for the usual reasons, re-hashed by the end of this essay!). If France can bring down the crafty homicidal maniac Kadafi, its enormous army and secret services, plus connection with USA oil companies, she can cut Google down to size.

In 1936, Hitler decided to kill the Spanish republic, and the Nazi dictator carried by air the rebel Spanish Moroccan army (led by rogue general Franco) into Spain. He did this, thanks to oil from Texaco, a Texas based oil company (the fact were later determined by the Congress of the USA, Texaco got a symbolic fine, so they are a matter of official USA history).

By the way, this explains why the French Front Populaire, then in power, and led by Prime Minister Leon Blum, a Jew, was leery to intervene massively in Spain. Blum knew very well that plutocrats from the USA and their evil corporations were the enablers of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco, and that the French and Spanish Republics were under systematic attack by the united forces of plutocracy. (And that war is still going on, with different puppets, Karzai one of them… But the strings pulled from the same establishment and mood. A case in point being Harvard, still central now, as it was in the 1920s and 1930s, making Nazi songs really inspiring.)

Nowadays, this sort of things ought to be meditated more carefully than ever: Hitler pretty much became all he could be, from the help of co-investing plutocratic corporations of the USA. To this day, IBM got away with graciously leasing to all Nazi extermination camps computers, servicing them everyday. The entire Shoah was driven by up to 10,000 computers managed directly by IBM New York, through Geneva. And that is just one case out of many crucial aids to Naziland.

Nowadays, as I said, three quarters of world finance is just the largest mafia the world has ever known. That Google thinks it can get giant profits from the sweat of real mental creators, without any compensation to them whatsoever is typical of the plutocratic mentality, namely everything for a few, in exchange for nothing, but insults.

Some will object that evil obsessed companies such as Google, or Apple made the success of the USA. Indeed: both companies have nearly a trillion dollars of market capitalization, more than the GDP of most countries. (I own a Mc Air, which works very nicely with its solid state drive; Steve Jobs honestly admitted that his company pretty much stole everybody in sight). OK. Fair enough: Apple is a technology integrator (by contrast with a real creator such as Intel). However, the real inventors have got to be rewarded. Neither Apple, nor Google are fundamental innovators (as, say, Intel, or the recent Nobel Laureates in physics and biology are). They are just playing some on TV.

A notorious case, long ago, was the neon tube: the real inventors were not rewarded. The fact that they were French is no excuse: by not rewarding real inventors, one discourages new and future real innovators.

Are vultures evil, do we need them in the real economy? The sixth point of the 10-point corporate philosophy of Google says “You can make money without doing evil.” So why being evil then? To make much more money than society can sustain?

There are two more bones of contention between Google and the French republic: Google’s confidentiality policy, which the French governmental institution Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL)considers violate French and European law. Basically Google buys and sells people’s lives, another way it behaves like a slave master.

When confronted to France, USA plutophiles generally scoff and evoke cheese eating surrender monkeys (exhibiting their ignorance of military history). However France is building the European Union as a French Republic amplification machine (Germany works best when getting orders from above).

In this particular case, organizations similar to CNIL in 29 other European countries (that’s more than half a billion citizens) have mandated the French CNIL to look into Google’s confidentiality policies.

The CNIL found that Google behavior MUST be modified (“doit etre modifie'”). The CNIL found that the selling and “finalities” of personal data could not be justified on security or legitimate Google grounds, or contract, or people’s consent. The Asia Pacific Privacy Authority and Canada are also supporting the CNIL. In other words, France is transmogrifying into the hard point of a worldwide Google modification effort. No wonder silicon minds are freaking out.

And not least: Google pays no tax on all the money it earns from French based companies.

As Sarkozy, the fired French president, not exactly a socialist, pointed out about Google:“It is not permissible that they realize a turnover of several billion euros in France without contributing to tax”.

Silicon dark alley types such as the young Google zillionaires and the old venture capital foxes behind them are not educated in the classical way. The human side of the economy escapes them totally, that’s how they made it. And they have this in common with crocodiles.

But how hard is it to understand? If you make billions in France, you have to pay tax in France. And yes, that could mean billions in taxes. And if you keep on not understanding this, the Republic will use force against you, it is as simple as that. Evil uses force, and only a greater force can dispose of evil.

And what evil is that? It’s not just Google’s hypocrisy shows with its slogan: Don’t be evil (We are in charge of that!), and its worldwide machinations, its tax avoidance. Google can fix all these things overnight.

The problem is much larger, much older, than that. Why does the government of the USA close its collective eyes on this sort of behavior? Why is it that it is the French Republic which has to set straight an American corporation?

As Google’s anti-democratic threat makes pretty obvious, the same sort of plutocracy of the USA which, 80 years ago, was all fired up, and ready to help impose Adolf Hitler onto the world, is still viewed as an asset by Washington. Only the naive would believe that companies such as those which helped Hitler got away with so much, for so long, operated without a particularly Dark Will of a political nature behind them. The same will is still here, 80 years after its Hitlerian triumph. Generations pass away, systems of thought perdure.

Will is a mighty thing, especially when it’s all about grabbing territory. It’s fascinating to see Rome, rendered completely senile by centuries of plutocracy, still rabid about conquering the world, when it had lost all power to do so, in the Third Century. That’s when Rome made several full invasion of Mesopotamia, all the way to the Persian Gulf, and into North West Iran, all the way to the Caspian Sea. A full century after emperor Valerian had been captured (treacherously, during peace talks), his army destroyed, Julian (the emperor elected in and by Paris) was killed in Mesopotamia (with catastrophic consequences).

(Shades of Hitler moving decisively ghost armies around Berlin in April 1945.) The immense riches that people who are nothing (such as the pseudo “founders” of Google, Brin and Page), just because their company pays no taxes, is symptomatic of a system that uses corporations for building an empire, the way Rome used Christianity to expand further than its sword could reach.

So the will to let rogue corporations of the USA conduct their own foreign policy and exploitation of the world is still here, as it was in the 1920 s and 1930s, building up Nazism.

All the more as that method, to use criminal businessmen to leverage even greater criminality was extremely successful in connection with the Nazi adventure, and the Stalin venture, with its near fatal weakening of Europe, and the Muslim Fundamentalist venture, with its resource procurement, etc.

Thanks to the rogue corporation strategy, the USA went from a provincial power (a bit like Australia nowadays) to the world superpower, within a few years. No wonder the rogue corporation models keeps on being applied. All the way to Afghanistan…

A militarized plutocratic Rome kept on invading Mesopotamia, for two centuries, when it was not civilized enough, not republican, nor democratic enough, to cling to it. In a similar fashion, the USA has not comprehended that other nations and peoples are starting to understand exactly what’s going on. Obama’s soporific Cairo speech hypocritically celebrating Islam had a short shelf life.

While I get accused of metastatic conspiracy theorizing, let me smile through an article in a major Arabic newspaper, which “reveals” in depth one of my preferred obsession, and allegation, namely the entanglement between dark operators in Washington, and the worst Muslim Fundamentalism.

As I have explained over the years, that entanglement of evil dates all the way back to Adolf Hitler and its minions, and, lo and behold, that’s exactly what the article observes. Hopefully I will write something on this, while Obama and his Machiavellian sycophants cruise to their well deserved doom and gloom.

Tell the truth long enough, and sometimes it ends up setting evil on fire!

***

Patrice Ayme

***

Why the servus of the Romans came to be called “slaves”? Simple: it was illegal to enslave Franks (by 600 CE everybody was a “Frank”, and by 700 CE, they came to be called “Europeans”). But it was not illegal to enslave Slavs… Charlemagne let the Venitian Republic, a sort of subsidiary of the Renovated Roman Empire, engage, with her mighty fleet, in a prodigious slave trading to the Muslim empire of the Southern Mediterranean.

So here we are. Romney has a plan, in five points. Obama says Romney’s plan is just one point: the rich should play with different rules. But what’s Obama’s plan? What is Obama’s point? Nothing. Except more of the same. And the same does not work.

The democrats have zero new ideas. After he was elected president, Obama spent two years on his knees, begging republicans to change tone. Apparently he was elected president to beg for love: Obama did not need republicans, in the first few months, as he enjoyed a supermajority. [See note.] Did he want to do nothing more than Bush, in the hope he would be rewarded, like Clinton (or Major, or Blair, or Sarkozy)? Giving six figure speeches to the powers that be.

I long pointed out that the economy is worse than in the 1930s, in some dimensions. Not too many celebrities point that out on the left: their power & wealth depend upon the present corrupt intellectual scheme. I want to meditate this graph:

French & German Private Companies Research & Development.

A consequence is this graph:

German Industrial Production Is Higher Than Ever. Because Research and Development in German private companies is higher than ever.

Why to brandish France and Germany in the context of the election in the USA? The European Union is an excellent place to test policies. What we see above is that Germany did something right, and France the exact same thing, wrong. With dramatic consequences (jobs are disappearing by the thousands in France every day it seems). Something resembling what’s done in Germany is basically the only solution for the West. And that’s real progressivism.

Germany is doing great economically. Germany has an unemployment rate of 5.5% although she accepted no less than one million new Eurozone residents, who came to work, in the last year alone. A spectacular way to solve the… German problem… Now something more about a dying birthrate.

Many leaders, political, academic or intellectual, on the left are more corrupt than on the right, because their minds are twisted. They are not what they seem. They are the opposite of what they claim. Those pseudo leftists are plutocrats, or next to plutocrats, or serving plutocrats… while claiming to serve the People. At least the Koch brothers, when they do their machinations, are really trying to influence public opinion the way one expects them to.

Whereas plutocrats such as (chief of the democrats in Congress) Nancy Pelosi (personal worth perhaps as great as Romney, about 200 million dollars), or (Senior Senator) Dianne Feinstein (personal worth up to twice Romney) claim to care about the plebs… Which is fine. However their historical record is that they did nothing when they controlled Congress, except for extending Bush’s tax cuts, Bush’s wars, and an ObamaCare who looks (to me) more like BuffetCare than anything else (Buffet is a notorious investor in HMOs and the like). So they are not what they seem.

Many of the critiques Romney has been making, I have been making over the years, to wit:

1) the lowering of the median family income by more than $4,300 (roughly 10%, in constant dollars). This is actually (one of) the main argument I historically made to qualify the present slump as the “Greater Depression”. (There are other arguments, now reinforcing, such as the decrease of life expectancy.)

2) that health care costs are out of control. Romney said they increased by more than $2,000 under Obama, and independent evaluators have forecast a proximal augmentation of the average family health insurance bill by as much as ObamaCare kicks in fully by 2014.

To put health care under control the only way is to make the basic plan public (as this takes the profit motive out of the cost of rendering care to the otherwise moribund). OK, Obama could push for that later.

3) the lack of jobs. Romney say he will get tougher with China, for currency manipulation (Obama already did this quite a bit), and Intellectual Property theft. IP theft is the big one. The West has been like a baby while the Chinese Communist Party and its plutocratic agents have been stealing IP right and left to the West.

The democrats have no plan, but Romney came up with one: take out all the deductions, beyond $25,000 total, do not tax capital gains below $200,000. And of course, reduce taxes all across the board, except, overall, for the top 5%.

How come the democrats do not have a plan? OK, tax the rich mandatorily 30%. That’s their would be plan. Good luck forcing Pelosi and Feinstein to pay 30% tax. The average Congress person and senator is a high multimilionaire, I do not see them taxing themselves. Moreover, taxes do not mean jobs, as Constantinople demonstrated for a millennium.

The same critique can be made to, say, the French Socialists. There the proposed tax is 75%. But entrepreneurs in France revolted, and used exactly the same argument as Romney: small companies create jobs, a lot of the pseudo millionaires actually re-invest massively in their companies, creating employment. A really progressive agenda has to take this into account. Bitten by critique that way, the French Socialists accepted that Romney/Silicon Valley argument, and operated a strategic retreat. And now they are sitting on their haunches, thinking harder and deeper… (Notice that the Socialists are in total control of France: Presidency, Senate, Parliament, most large cities and regions; what they have is an intellectual, not political problem.)

This argument, that multi-millionaire entrepreneurs create jobs, is correct, and close to the heart of Germany’s economic success. I would argue that small entrepreneurs should be taxed ZERO on the portion of the money they make that they reinvest in R&D.

German entrepreneur-owners in the Mittlestand (Middle Stand) re-invest massively in their companies. OK, they are tough with their employees, but is it better to have a sadistic boss rather than having no income whatsoever? OK, it depends how sadistic, it’s all about 50 Shades Of Grey (Feldgrau in this case…).

Thus it would be good for USA democrats and French Socialists to have a system similar to that Angela Merkel presides over. The Mittelstand invests massively in research and development.

In 2011, Germany obtained three times more patents than France (which has 83% of the population of Germany). Here are the numbers from 2008:

The classification is very different for patents in force, and for applications. Comparing all, it seems some countries, presently in economic difficulty are seeing their patent position decay quickly. Digging a bit deeper, one can see that research and development led by private companies has exploded in Germany, while it has decayed in France.

The bottom line is this: people in the developing world earn at most 5% of what they would earn, with the same job, in the developed countries. Reciprocally this means that most employees, in developed countries, are paid twenty, and often thirty times too much, or at least would be if the communications were free.

The way out is for developed countries to develop jobs that cannot be replaced at a distance. Except for low lives’ jobs, such as pushing carts around and shining shoes in airport, this means jobs depending upon knowledge most countries cannot endow their citizens with. Firms with a persistent R&D strategy outperform those with an irregular or no R&D investment.

European Countries With Higher R&D Do Much Better

So, to provide with employment, developed societies should be oriented towards research, to develop further. The target should not be 3%, but 10% of GDP. A good way to do this would be to make all research and development go tax free. $6.6 billion of research tax credit has been claimed recently in the USA, a very small fraction of the total R&D, so there is a lot of room to spur research using taxation!

It goes without saying that forcing the banks away from derivatives, and back into the real economy would help. One can easily argue that three quarter of world finance is actually a criminal organization. How? Simple: the world used to work with 8% of corporate profits in finance. Now it’s 40%. Those 32%, one third of world profits, can only be explained as parasitism of some sort.

So let the left talk about these things. That would be more constructive than the specious arguments Obama used in the debate to mark points with the silly ones [See note]. If Obama is elected without an effective plan, the situation is pretty sure to disintegrate further, and when things get too desperate, the fascist instinct always gets in gear.

***

Patrice Ayme

***

Note on Obama’s specious arguments: the 47%. And the Benghazi fiasco. Obama said he used the word “terror” the next day. But I thoroughly documented that the White House administration prepared declarations at the time accused those who “denigrated Islam”, not a deliberate Salafist attack by a commando (which is what really happened). Instead a video describing the Qur’an according to itself (!), and a French magazine with two silly drawings (one representing a Jew and a Muslim, and the other that I reproduced). I would actually suggest that Clinton sacrifice herself, and resign. Time to man up. After all, there was a massive Salafist base next door (since then destroyed by inhabitants of Benghazi in retaliation for the attack on the Consulate of the USA).

***

Note on supermajority: I sent a comment on the Krugman New York Times editorial (another freaky attack accusing Romney to have lied about what he did in next year). I pointed out Obama did nothing when he could have done everything. exceptionally, the NYT published it, jointly with a reply that I was deluded because Obama had a super majority of 60 in the Senate for only 14 weeks (as the rest of the time, the reply argued, poor Ted Kennedy was idiotically “housebound“, meaning Teddy, a specialist of swimming against the current, preferred to help the republicans by eating pancakes at home, rather than facing his destiny, and resigning).

That was doubly idiotic: first of all, the democrats controlled Congress for four years, during which, they did preciously nothing. Secondly, even if it’s all the fault of poor rich Teddy boy eating pancakes at home, 14 weeks is a long time. In less than 14 weeks, the French Socialist government has passed an enormous amount of legislation, including a European financial rescue mechanism, an FDIC for Europe (that required sorting things out with 26 other Congresses!), a 75% tax on income, a financial transaction tax, and the French Socialists passed countless other laws.

Face it guys: Obama hid behind Oblahblah, also known as George W. Bush III… And plutocrat Pelosi, his prophet.

So the New York Times published my comment which mentioned just in passing “supermajority”, joined with a reply already “approved” by 108 people (!) In other words, a lot of money is deployed to cheaply twist reality. How could have these people read by stuff, reply to it, and have 108 people read the reply, and approve it? All in one nanosecond?

Two important philosophical events serving peace and progress happened October 12, 2012: a Russian Soyuz rocket carrying a very special cargo lifted from French Guyana, and the European Union got the Nobel Peace Prize. Finally.

If there is one individual or entity that ever deserved the Peace Prize, it is the European Union! Nothing, nobody, did more for peace than the EU.A truth all the mad European haters can now be slapped with. (To help them regain their senses.)

Croatia Should Join The Preceding 500 Million People In 2013.

Nobel Peace Prize committee secretary Geir Lundestad said the EU got the prize for its “accumulated record over more than six decades… it was about time.”

He listed five achievements: Franco-German reconciliation after World War II; support for new democracies in Greece, Portugal and Spain in the 1980s; support for former Communist states in the 1990s; modernisation of Turkey; and peacebuilding in the Western Balkans.

Committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland added that the timing of the award is linked to the euro gloom.

“We should focus again on the fundamental aims of the organisation… If the euro fails, then the danger is that many other things will disintegrate as well, like the internal market and free borders. Then you will get nationalistic policies again. So it may set in motion a process which most Europeans would dislike,” he said.

“Dislike” is a euphemism for war. Indeed, civilization has gone into full, astounding reverse, many times before. Civilization is like a bicycle: pedalling in reverse does not work very long, before it crashes.

(Something the USA leadership ought to have meditated more carefully before engaging into officially sanctioned, officially unpunished, official war of aggression, official torture, official arbitrary detention, official arbitrary assassination worldwide by death panel for all to officially contemplate, and financial criminals officially extolled as saints and great men, and their banks worth giving S8,000 billions of public money. But of course that means that the USA leadership would have to know history in depth; instead all it knows from history is that violence pays handsomely)

***

EUROPEAN UNION AS A NEW PHILOSOPHICAL PARADIGM, 30 CENTURIES IN THE MAKING:

The European Union was launched by the two main continental powers of Western Europe, the two main pieces of the Frankish empire, Francia and Germania, after nearly two centuries of continuous war with each other ended in total civilizational devolution.

How we got there is, by itself a tremendous story, even older than when the Celts occupied Rome, 24 centuries ago. The Franks claimed it came all the way back to the fall of Troy.

The European Union is no less than a reconstitution of the “Renovated Roman Empire” of 800 CE. Now the later had been established by more than 4 centuries of continuous war.

After six generations of unity, an estrangement, an apartheid was tried: the Franks around Paris on one side, the rest of the Franks, on the other side.

That alternative to unity led to vigorous fighting over the for 1,000 years.

That diabolical alternative, the breaking up of Europe, once again, effected 1,080 years ago, the plutocrats love (as it fosters war, hence fascism, hence fascist leadership, hence their “leadership”). The plutocrats, and their many servants in the academia, and media, of the USA, mongrels of money avid, have been pushing.

The European Union is not just being built to insure peace by creating entanglement and co-dependency. (See “Why Europe Why The Euro“)

The European Union represents also a new way of approaching (in particular inter-national) politics, through intense debate, beating the problems into submission with ideas, in the fullness of time. (Notice that this does not require unanimity!) Some (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, countless enemies of the Open Society lauded by Pericles) will say that this was tried in Athens before, and led to disaster.

Well the answer to that one is pretty easy: Athens did not have the democratic institutions that the EU has (answering Socrates’ main objection). And Athens (including Socrates) was often inhuman. And Athens’ National Assembly was hysterical, deciding an holocaust on one day, forbidding it the next (after the orders had sailed away).

The European Union advances slowly, methodically, meditatively (a momentary disadvantage of democracy, be it against Hitler, or against the present plutocratic conspirators).

The first serious attempt at pacific unification between France and Germany happened before Nazism (Napoleon had unified Germany before, but that was not pacific). Nazism is how that pacific unification attempt of the 1920s & 1930s was crushed. The plutocrats know how to instrumentalize democracy, war, holocausts. They are at it all the time, including now.

***

THE FRANKS BUILT GERMANIA…

Long ago two philosophies fought, one, the Greco-Roman, strongly exploitative, the other, the Minoan-“Trojan”-Frankish, more comprehensively, and comprehendingly human (“Troy” was actually a subsidiary from a much larger power following the Great Mother religion, hence presumably less sexist, hence the war about free woman Helen, that came to define Greece… sexism?).

The Romans, and later the Franks turned Germania in a place where civilization became sufficiently intense to be worth conquering and governing. The irony was that the Salian Frank confederation was German. It soon understood that a superior philosophy would allow it to become richer, and superior to Romanitas (“Romanity”). Some of the Romans, among the most important generals, were full participants to this devious scheme of endowing the Franks with that advanced philosophy (I know this because the law of the Franks was written in Latin in a neo-Republican, more equalitarian mood).

The Franco-German empire lasted more than 5 centuries in united splendor (from Clovis’ crushing of the Goths, to the election of Otto I after the French refused to provide with any input in the election). The main cause of the split was French contempt, centered around Paris, for the uncouth eastern types… who comprised no less than two thirds of the empire (due to the Treaty of Verdun, 843 CE). Kind contempt veered progressively into estrangement, while the part not controlled by Paris called itself what it was, the Roman empire (it became “holly” centuries later and “German” by 1500 CE).

***

POST FRANKISH EUROPE, OR WHEN ESTRANGEMENT MEANS WAR:

The conquest and subsequent fabrication of England by a French army headed by the Duke of Normandy (Nortmanni Dux) made the situation worse, as the king of France, for a while was not much more than the king of Paris (when l’Anglois was not in possession of that too).

Yet Paris was by far the mightiest city in Europe (in the middle of a giant productive agricultural zone), and Paris engaged in centuries of reconquest, a drive, propelled by necessity, to inverse the Treaty of Verdun by force. It was only historical justice that over ten month in 1916, nearly one million young French and Germans died there (at least 700,000 in combat, and the rest, like rats abused to death).

The reason is simple: Verdun itself, not far from Paris, was not under Paris control. Nearly half of present day France, and the ancient Francia and Gallia, had been, unbelievably estranged from itself by force, under the Treaty of Verdun (843 CE) and it made no sense in all dimension of geography: human, linguistic, physical, commercial, etc.

***

WHY DID SOME WWI FRENCH HEROES TURN INTO NAZIS?

A curious phenomenon occurred: several of the most prominent collaborators of Hitler during the occupation of France by the Nazis were extreme heroes of World War One. Petain, who went out of his way to betray in 1940-44 was the general leading, and winning, the battle of Verdun with utmost ferocity, even re-instituting the notorious Roman method of decimation (in Roman army units that had disobeyed orders drastically, one man out of ten was executed).

In the Second Battle of the Marne, the French command knew, or guessed perfectly well the Prussian general staff’s plan. In no small measure from commando operation led by perhaps the most famous special operation officer in France, Joseph Darnand, just before the attack: he captured an entire Prussian command, on July 14, 1918, with the plans of the attack for the next day. He was declared one of the three artisans of victory (with Clemenceau and Foch). In 1940, again, he volunteered, in spite of his age, and distinguished himself as a lieutenant in many special commando operations behind enemy lines and was made officer of the Legion of Honor.

Unbelievably, Darmand became the chief of the Milice, an organization of fascist racist criminals (it would be too flattering to call them SS, although many ended in the Waffen SS in 1945), 30,000 strong, most of them got executed (most often, informally). Darmand had a proper trial, and died, shot by firing squad October 3, 1945, while singing a manly song.

Why did such war heroes became like dogs to Hitler? Because the WWI heroes were sick of war, and, in particular, sick of making war to Germany. In their haste to embrace Germany, they did not notice, as much as they should have, that they were embracing Nazism.

***

ISRAEL SHOULD HAVE A BIR HAKIEM NATIONAL THNKSGIVING DAY:

The same sort of phenomenon happened on the Nazi side. (Let alone the German side!) One has to understand that the number one objective of Nazism was to vanquish France. (All the rest of Nazi obsessions were afterthoughts!)

One could not find more dedicated French hating Nazis than Hitler and Rommel. Still they underwent radical psychological change… while fighting the French for nearly six years (1939-1945). Precisely because they got spanked so bad. (It was not exactly Hitler’s plan to start a world war in 1939 that he was sure to lose!)

Rommel started the war as a fanatical Nazi general, complete with mass murder, and extremely gifted. The killing of the French and British armies in 1940 was greatly his work. The whereabouts of his Seventh Panzer division were the most mysterious part of general Guderian’s (already secret to the High Wehrmacht command) sickle attack by the ten armored divisions of the Nazi army.

A few weeks later, after Dunkirk, Rommel led Guderian’s attack south. But, on the Somme river, Franco-African units stopped him for three days. Finally the French officers (mostly) surrendered their mostly African troops, as they had run out of ammunition. Rommel, enraged by the losses of his beloved Nazi comrades executed all his French army prisoners. White and blacks. Hundreds.

Then there was the battle of Bir Hakiem. Rommel had defeated the British army, which was trying to retreat, in disarray, along the Libyan coast.

Rommel wanted to win the war, and that meant killing the British army before it could retreat to prepared defense lines at the Egyptian border. For that Rommel decided to implement a fast sickle move behind the British units, slowed down by their heavy weapons. If that encirclement had worked, the elite British 8th army would have been annihilated, the allies would have had no significant force before India.

History’s largest pincer move, planned by Adolf Hitler, would have unfolded in a few months: Rommel would have seized Egypt, the Mediterranean would have become a Nazi lake. After a few weeks of reorganization, Rommel’s re-boosted army would have dashed into Iraq. Azerbaijan, and its considerable oil, would have been squeezed between Rommel and the Nazi south army group advancing through the Caucasus.

The exterminators in charge of assassinating the one million Jews in Palestine, were ready.

However, time was of the essence for Rommel to win. In June 1940, France had been vanquished because the Nazi advance was so fast that the French and British armies got cut off. A few weeks later, the French aerial supremacy, which, after enormous Nazi losses, existed on paper, could not be implemented, as airfields were falling to the Nazi tanks, one after the other.

So Rommel had to go fast. He took all his best armored divisions, and dashed through the desert. He met 4,000 French elite soldiers at Bir Hakiem, in a new version of Thermopylae. The French knew everything about “guerre éclair” (Blitzkrieg) and knew that, to break Rommel, they had to slow him down.

The French held two weeks, suffering enormous losses, until they ran out of ammunition. This allowed the British army to escape Rommel’s encirclement and take refuge into the prepared defensive lines, and their mine fields. Ultimately Rommel tried a frontal assault, months later, and was defeated.

Hitler was livid: incapable of getting Iraq and Caucasus oil, and to cut the flow of supplies going from the USA to the USSR, through Iran and the Caspian, he was losing the war, for sure.

***

WHY DID THE TOPMOST NAZIS TURN PRO-FRENCH DURING WWII?

Assessing the Nazi disaster at Bir Hakiem, Hitler declared to his cabinet that the French were the best warriors (after the Nazis), and so France had to be annihilated. However the Nazi cabinet was unimpressed by its boss’ flourish. Led by Hitler’s favorite, Albert Speer, the cabinet pointed out to the Fuehrer that, without French industrial help, it’s Nazi Germany that would get exterminated. Hitler, ever more livid, observed that, if one let the France industry grow to support the Nazi war effort, France would win the war without fighting. Speer told him there was no choice. Hitler agreed.

Thus, what happened was striking: by Hitler’s own standards, Hitler became a collaborator to France, as early as 1942, after France had inflicted to him a lethal strategic defeat. And precisely because of that. The ways of war are mysterious, and unpredictable.

Meanwhile Rommel reconsidered that war crime, kill the prisoners, fanatically Nazi strategy of his. After all the superior Nazi race had been stopped at Bir Hakeim, not just by a French force, full of french aristocrats, but also a French force full of French Jews.

After a famous SS officer in an SS Panzer division committed some war crime against French civilians, in 1944, Rommel, head of the Nazi forces in France, ordered the SS arrested. Better: Rommel, and much of the Nazi Wehrmacht, joined the top German generals who considered Hitler a menace to Germany, and they made a coup. Next the best Nazis plotted with the French resistance to save Paris, and so on. Towards the end of the war, in an ultimate nail in the Nazi mood system, even Himmler (helped by a Swedish diplomat and a courageous Jew) got into the act of saving Jews (from his own death machine).

The Nazi philosophy had been thoroughly defeated, and buried, by many of the top Nazis themselves. In no small measure because the Nazi war against Europe had proven to be a war against Germany herself, and victory proven to be worst than defeat.

Ironically, Nazism, and its fascist Prussian predecessors, let alone Napoleon, had demonstrated that European Unification was unavoidable, but that war was not the way to unify Europe. Sade had been right, all along: just war is a must.

***

WAR BETWEEN FRANCE & GERMANY: SELF DEFEATING, YET SIMPLY STARTED BY NOT SINGING TOGETHER:

Conclusion 1: For Germany to make war against France, or reciprocally, was like shooting oneself in the head, it made no sense. That was clear to people such as Petain (who decorated Darnand) in 1940, and even to most Nazis by 1945.

Conclusion 2: But war is not how it started. Estrangement is how war got started. Thus some Greeks are welcome to parade with Nazi flags in honor of Merkel the Angel: no indifference wanted. Show the passion, express your feelings, push forward the debate. So now, can the Greeks explain why their plutocrats are not taxed, and why they want to build a Formula One circuit with 29 million euros of (Franco-German) government money (while France, 15 times richer, discontinued Formula One because maintenance cost so much).

***

TREMBLE ENEMIES OF EUROPE: YOU HAVE BEEN REVEALED AS ENEMIES OF PEACE:

A philosophical Rubicon was crossed by giving the Union the Peace Prize. A declaration of philosophical war against the enemies of Europe, the forces of evil, the forces of plutocracy (of the same sort as those which launched the surprise World War of August 1, 1914). This help from the Nobel Committee does not come too soon.

Hateful, grotesque propaganda and machinations from the richest people and criminal organizations in the world have attacked the European Union with a viciousness unseen since the 1930s. I literally read hundreds of pages of ill informed, but vicious anti-European venom from, say, “the conscience of a liberal” Paul Krugman, a famous academic and Nobel, pillar of the supposedly left wing and newspaper of reference of the USA, the New York Times.

In the 1930s, the fascists were in plain sight. They claimed to be NAtionalist, and ZocIalist (NA-ZI). They were nothing of the sort. In truth, they were serving their masters, the plutocrats of (mostly) three different nationalities (Deutschland, UK, USA), and three different sorts (financial, military, industrial).

Nowadays the situation is simpler. The plutocrats are in plain sight (although they have been hiding behind some of political parties, most prominently those of the USA, they are in no way hidden as they were ). Their criminality is blatant. But they are not prosecuted. The supposedly democratic USA president sings their praises (see Obama making criminal conspirator Buffet into god… in supposedly leftist Newsweek).

For example, the financial criminals control more than three quarters of the world financial system (way worse a situation than when banksters supported Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s). How do I know this? That quantitative estimate can be rigorously evaluated. For now, I will leave my method to the imagination of the reader.

Plutocracy, much of it New York and London based did its best to sabotage the European Union, and pushed National “Socialism” instead. It worked, and the result was the Second World War and its holocaust(s). The plutocracy based in the USA came out of it strong and irresistible, establishing its self declared “American Century”.

European haters have been supported in their attacks by ignorant, or deliberately vicious Wall Street sycophants and helpers (generally both ignorant and vicious).

The case of the ignorant Paul Krugman is typical. I say “ignorant” deliberately, because it describes reality most faithfully. Krugman is esteemed by the oligarchy, and advise it. He was scathing against European Monetary Union (EMU), or the general idea of European unification. After thirty years of this or so, from being in Ronald Reagan’s government to a status of semi deity of American “liberals”, trashing Europe, Krugman suddenly discovered the existence of the Founding Fathers of Europe, such as Robert Schuman, and the idea that the European Union was being built to make war inside Europe impossible. Then Krugman declared that the European Union was a good thing… so it had to be saved from the European Monetary Union.

Of course, a Monetary Union is indispensable to insure peace. The USA actually engaged in a horribly deadly civil war (nearly 3% of the population killed), precisely when, and because, the USA had no monetary union (the greenback was created during the civil war, at the end of the barrel of a gun, to pay for union troops).

***

PEACE MEANS STRENGTH, & THUS IN THE WAY OF USA PLUTOCRACY: GALILEO.

One of my main ideas is that, just as Rome, the North American English speaking republic is pervaded by the exploitative supreme mentality. Just as Rome, the USA came to become dependent upon slavery, and the unfair exploitation of man by man.

That put the USA on a collision course with the sustainable mentality of the European Union.

The best example of that was the propping, by the plutocracy of the USA, of Adolf Hitler, and even of Joseph Stalin. All of these efforts to eliminate the competition from the European democracies (mostly Great Britain and France, and their giant empires). It worked splendidly, this massive, multi generational conspiracy.

When I write this many haters rise and condemn me as mad man. Many pseudo left sites immediately banned me, as a “conspiracy theorist”.

However, the fact are here, they are blatant. Yes, the USA knew, at the time, that Stalin had eliminated the Polish elite, and still supported Stalin like crazy for the following 5 years, even giving him half of Europe, including Poland. The USA hid that fact for 25 years more than the USSR did. In other words, the American public is manipulated at a depth exceeding the Soviet one by a full generation!

So much for the USA being the country of freedom. Plutocratic freedom, yes, public freedom, no.

A secondary conspiracy what the one with the feudal, oil providing regimes such as Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain. Now under stress and contradiction.

My point of view is progressing under the radar of conventional propaganda.

For example the USA provides the GPS signal. Half a century ago, the Europeans would have saluted crisply, and trust Uncle Sam. But what if Uncle Sam was behind Hitler, Stalin, Khrushchev? Khrushchev? remember the invasion and massacre of Hungary, coincident with Suez, Khrushchev threatening to atom bomb London and Paris, while the USA had France and Britain condemned by the General Assembly of the United Nations?

Well, Europeans are starting to understand that the Italian resistants were not crazy to hang Mussolini from an Exxon station (OK, Exxon has craftily changed its name since). USA oil companies made Hitler and Mussolini all they could be.

So the Europeans thought, and, led by the obnoxious French, discovered that the GPS was a vulnerability. They decided to make their own GPS. Galileo. That is why thus astounding sight, back to Franco-Russian ccoperation of 100 years ago, but now with German collaboration:

Within three years, medium Russian Soyuz and large French Arianne rockets should have launched 30 of the satellites.

Meanwhile the USA dragged pathetically the last space shuttle, an error with wings, through the streets of Los Angeles, cutting 400 trees in the process. How do the USA get to space these days? With, well, the rocket in the preceding picture, Soyuz.

How many man rated rockets the USA has now? Zero. How many does the West have? One. Just one: the European, French built, Ariane. But the USA does not want to use it: pride first. Just as with the Rafale, a superlative fighter bomber without equivalent in the USA, the Washington leadership prefers anything, even being launched by the Russians, rather than cooperating with the philosophical enemy, its progenitor, France and the European Enlightenment (considering that the USA legalized slavery while its antagonist, Great Britain freed the blacks that joined its side, it’s not clear which side was the most enlightened in the American Independence war).

The USA will have to surrender to the European Enlightenment someday, because full humanity is a better philosophical leadership than exploitative scheming, always, in the fullness of time. Plutocracy is a mediocracy, democracy a meritocracy, where it counts the most, the realm of ideas.

And how do the best ideas win? Through debate, and even more debate. And this is what the European Union has promoted. After Merkel got really mean (as deserved), she took a low cost airline to travel to Italy for vacation. That’s what debating also is: speaking with one’s acts.

As the picture of the Soyuz above demonstrates, the European Union extends way further than its present official borders. Its new civilization of debate supreme is playing a role quite a bit similar to the spreading of Christianity well beyond the borders of the Roman empire, spreading Roman values, well beyond what the Roman legions could reach… (And much of how Romanitas survived to this day.)

European construction, the growth of the European Union, is, in essence, transcendental, as it forces three dozen nations to ever more overwhelm their differences with more brainy convergences. In that sense, it is a most important philosophical movement on the millennial scale, which can serve as a template to many other transplanetary organizations, including the United Nations, necessary to handle fascism, massive terrorism, and the devastation of the biosphere.

If the European Union failed, it would be the very engine of the progress we humans need to survive, which would fail. But, of course, the European Union will not fail. The mighty, and very determined, French and German Republics will see to it that the European Union will not fail.

Until the Twelfth Century, what are now called Islamist countries, considered to be part of “Islam” had actually a majority of… Christians. There were also plenty of Jews. (Source: A well known fact, reasserted recently by the head conservator, Islam Art department, Louvre.)

Later on the Islamist superstition weakened the countries it had captured so much that it became ever more necessary, and ever more single minded, in a demonstration of self feeding intellectual fascism. A vicious spiral down the crash of a civilization. (Helped by the Mongols, who decapitated the thinking elites.)

I have said this many times before: the Golden Age of Islam was actually the Golden Age of Secularism. Christians and Jews, previously terrorized by the Christian dictatorship in Constantinople, were much more free, as the Muslim (military) authorities were happy to have them pay a tax, and leave it at that.

Things degenerated when Islam exerted its dictatorship onto all. It was back to the problem under Constantinople, with a nasty twist: under Islamic dictators, there was no separation between state and arbitrary superstition.

Although Constantinople’s fanatical “Catholic Orthodox” Christian superstition had been unbearable, for Egypt and much of the Orient, it was, in theory at least, mitigated by secular law. The Roman law corpus, refurbished under emperor Justinian’s very long reign, made a distinction between secular laws and religious laws.

That was the only order Justinian gave, and its implementation was facilitated by choosing a Pagan (!) law professor as the head of the legal refurbishment commission (I do not know how one could still have Pagans in Constantinople in the 6C!)

Augustine said that: “It Is A Wretched Slavery Which Takes The Figurative Expressions of Scripture in A Literal Sense.” And, nine centuries later, under the Kurd Saladin, head of state in Egypt, and much of the Middle Ages, so it was with Islam. What would become Wahhabism, the literal slavery to scripture, was subjected to the worst penalties.

Islam, a convenient superstition to have for exalted desert soldiers, created an army, which created a (military) state, which made its generals rich beyond understanding, and those created laws expanding their rule. In the end this madness of an oligarchic crowd has fed on itself, in a parallel universe.

On the largest philosophical scale, it is easy to see what happened: as the craddle of civilization dessicated, it went increasingly in a fascist mode. (That’s a way to look at Fernand Braudel’s “hydraulic dictatorship” thesis).

Yet, present technological advances present with an opportunity of getting out of this vicious circle, as long as superstition can be relegated to a secondary role below secularism supreme.

***

Saudi Arabia Is A Homosexual Country, IKEA Is Its Prophet:

The most published and read work in the world is not the Bible, or this site, but the IKEA catalog. It is available worldwide, even in Saudi Arabia, where IKEA has three of its furniture stores. The catalog represents the typical family enjoying IKEA goods. The Saudi edition has only men in it. All the women were electronically erased.

IKEA is a Swedish company, and Sweden is known for sexual equality. But greed is the need that wins. On the face of it, the disappearance of women from Arabia makes the place a homosexual country.

The Greek homos means “one and the same,” from the Proto Indo European somos (Sanskrit samah, English “even, the same”).

Some will say, what’s wrong with homosexuality? Simple: the female and male brains work differently (OK, brains can be more or less male or female, or whatever, an irrelevant detail). Thus the perspectives obtained are different, and the set of all mental and emotional perspectives is, thus, made richer, in a country where both genders are treated equally.

In other words, the more homosexual a country is, the more moronic. In Ancient Greece, there were intellectual women (a female philosopher appears to inform Socrates of her higher wisdom on love, at some point in Plato). However women were clearly segregated against, and no doubt this lack of feminine perspective, logically and emotionally, contributed to the demonically mad brutality running amok, that made many Greek states feel that the Persians were preferable to the Athenians (this happened in Lesbos, which was occupied by Persia, before being occupied by Athens). This changed only with Frankish queens, a millennium later.

Islam had to my knowledge, only one female leader, in Egypt, Shajar Al Durr, of Turkic origin. Shajar confronted Saint Louis, crushed him, captured him, and founded the Mamluk state (1250 CE). Thus Muslim women can reach the sky, if only one let them be.

The Saudi elite ought to meditate this as it tries hesitantly to pull the country out of its obscurantism, the largest piece of which is probably female subjugation. Subjugated females bring children up until the age of seven, traditionally, thus insuring another generation of mentally underperforming males, incapable of understanding that stupid mothers make stupid children.

***

Circumcise This Problem:

Sexual mutilation is an interesting contradiction of Abrahamism. In Indonesia Muslim females are circumcised. That was made unlawful, and then lawful again, as Superstitionism (“Muslim Fundamentalism”) took over again.

Why is it a contradiction? Because the Abrahamists go around, claiming their all mighty and merciful god has made a perfect world (complete with Satan). Then Jews and their Muslim parrots insist on cutting part of the anatomy (but not beards!). So they think they know better than their god, and can improve on god’s creation?

As a letter in The Economist (Sept 29, 2012, print edition) has it: “Cutting the pleasure out. SIR – I am astounded by those who decry female circumcision (the removal of the clitoris), yet blithely support male circumcision (“Odd bedfellows”, September 15th). Studies that claim no loss of sexual function or satisfaction are just wrong. The nerve endings in the male foreskin, including the frenulum, are analogous to those in the vagina and labia. Removing them is the sensory equivalent of removing everything except a woman’s clitoris. Sure, it’s still possible to have an orgasm, but the experience pales in comparison.

Garry King
Bern, Switzerland.”

Well spoken. One may wonder what are the consequences of deliberately handicapped people. It’s very clear that, by confining women, removing them from full accession to full culture, one removes children from full accession to the world too, and thus circumcision, physical or cultural, is part of procreating a continuation of the mutilation.

However, superstition is just about who is on top. Astounding cruelty and non sense is of the essence. It’s not about logic of the world, it’s against logic of the world. It’s just a way to justify the rule of an oligarchy.

Oppression, and, in particular, mutilation, is of organized superstition’s essence. Sometimes it backfires, sure. But the reverses themselves are a binding-again factor, as they incite the rise of the fascist instinct.

***

Syria As A Typical Muslim (un)Civil War:

The Spanish caliphate started to fall when the Muslims there got at each other throats. Why does this sort of things happen so much to Muslims?

Because the essence of Muslim law is that the non believers ought to be killed. But how is “non believing” determined? It’s a matter of philosophical introspection. Muslim law punishes the “mens rea” (the thing of the mind). Thus Muslim law enforcement is all about punishing who one believes is a bad person, because of what one considers to be his bad relationship with god. Murderous gossip, erected as a moral, and just.

Instead Roman secular laws starts with specific secular acts which are unlawful (actus reus). The role of Mens Rea is confined to making the distinction between the accidental and the wilful.

The West has the military means to intervene in Syria. However, in spite of the on-going massacre, at this very moment, it would not be wise to do so. First there is no UN authorization, and the West needs a secular power, or something approaching this, to give power to (as was the case in Libya).

However, the greatest secular power in Syria right now is the corrupt plutocracy fighting for its survival against all too many determined jihadists often financed, organized, or even sent by the Wahhabists themselves. That Iran does the same with Assad and his Shiite allies is no excuse.

Lack of cynicism can be a problem.

***

War Teaches Bad Culture:

A Georgian knights army contributed to the large Mongol army that besieged, and finally destroyed Baghdad, and all Islamic culture there (Christians were spared). Christian Frankish and Armenian armies also contributed (1258 CE). Arab sources claim two million citizens were assassinated, and the river ran black from the ink of destroyed texts (the Mongols claim nearly 900,000 executed). Such elements of brutality, when they reach such an abominable scale, become meta cultural. Extreme, institutionalized brutality, used against an enemy, can turn against those who used it, and pervade culturally throughout the centuries. By acting as if holocausts were a solution, Georgia and Armenia may not have helped their future cultural (hence national) standings. (And the Franks were to disappear from the Orient within a generation, when their racist bosses in the West refused to condone the alliance with the Mongols, after the fall of Damascus.)

Blood calls blood, but brutality is also a disease of the mind, individual, or national.

In Georgia, the corrupt, somewhat Bush crazy plutocrat (still president), who initiated an ill considered war with Russia, just lost legislative control to Georgia’s richest man (the latter wants both to get into NATO, and make peace with Russia, where he made his fortune). It’s a bit as with Romney and Obama: sometimes it’s better, more honest, to go with the plutocrat, the one who pulls the strings, rather than puppets, butlers, or underlings, below.

Meanwhile Erdogan, Prime Minister and leader of Turkey, three times elected as PM, as head of the Islamist party, is becoming allergic to Syrian shells (or maybe Assad’s support for the Kurds: it’s getting complicated!). The PM just said, in a state of great excitement:…”If you are not ready to go to war, you are not a state, if you cannot go to war, you are not a nation. Remember what our predecessors said:’If you want peace, prepare war’…” Erdogan is right. The Romans and their famous proverbs, including “Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum” were indeed the ancestors of the present population of Turkey, and its culture.

War is the gift that keeps on giving, as long as it is waged for the best reasons. But only then. Waging war for the wrong reasons has been the bane of Islam. Once again, Syria is an excellent demonstration. Turkey better make sure that the war is just, the Republican way, and not just… Islamist. That is, Turkey should not try to reconquer some of the empire it used to have, before it was kicked out by the Arabs (helped by Lawrence of Arabia), the British and the French (from between the late 18 C until 1920…) Quite the opposite, it’s high time that the land of the Kurds, three times older than Islam, accede to independence…

The really optimistic bask in bad news, the erroneously pessimistic cling to daddy, that is Father Christmas, Christ, God, Muhammad, Huitzilopochtli. Is daddy all what the superstitious cling to? Or is the clinging to infantile superstition part of the vertiginous intoxication of the herd with erroneous mental strategies, most favorable to those inclined to rule, and the cruel brutes in their service? Yes to all! Even bacteria have found those tricks.

Many are the reasons to be opposed to superstitious religions. Today I will focus on just one.

The respect, love, and tolerance of ignorance, excuses all, even the greatest crimes. It’s intrinsic to superstition. And enough to nail the Christian moral system:

“Forgive Them, Because They Know Not What They Do. Most Convenient Excuse Ever.”

Aztec philosophers told the Conquistadores that brandishing torture to death as the symbol of their religion of proclaimed love was outrageous. The conquistadores agreed. They removed the squirming Christ from the crosses of Mexico.

***

Ignorance is the perfect justification for murder. If a brute wants to commit a great crime, an unjust war, he can be a Christian, hide in the Bush, and join the Legate of the Pope proclaiming:“Tuez-les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens.” “Kill them all, God will recognize his own.”

The occasion for this all encompassing, fundamentally Christian declaration was the crusade against the mighty County of Toulouse (1209-1255 CE). Toulouse was a Roman Republic in all but name. The Pope could only hate a secular Republic that admitted one could NOT tell on which side of the devil the Catholic church was.

That particular crusade against the original Protestants killed one million innocent French victims. Crusades were not just something to kill Jews and Orientals with, and steal their riches. Crusades was something plutocrats did to whoever they could do it to. (In the end the Crusades backfired: the church came out of them fighting with itself, and so many nobles died, they were washed out by history next.)

On the internet nowadays the feeble minded herd is in full evidence, warts and all. Its ugly stampeding nature resonates all over. Anonimity allows the greatest cheating. There are actually companies making false reviews (they typically dispatch their employees to make false comments from cyber cafes, so that’s untraceable). That is punished by law in some countries (Suisse).

A strident woman claimed that Obama’s ambassador in Libya was killed because he, Obama, was in the process of invading this peaceful land.

I pointed out that the truth was dramatically the other way around. She then hurled at me in public the intriguing theory that I was, obviously, a woman who had suffered abuse in my childhood. Living in denial of Obama’s ongoing invasion of Africa had led her to discover who I was. On the way, she boasted that she had been herself abused, it took one to know one. Narcissism and exhibitionism are strong Internet medecines.

Here is another example of Internet infantilism. Someone insinuated that World War One happened because: …”The government faced two choices: ban the use of coal or impose further restrictions. And then, by a curious set of circumstances, World War I happened, and people had something more urgent to think about. After the dust had settled, the pollution question seemed to have been forgotten… Again: coincidence?”

The real truth is more sobering. There was a true conspiracy, but not about coal pollution. That was fully documented in several ways. I commented about what really happened:

“War was decided, in December 1912, by four Prussian Staff generals, the top guys, and very reluctantly agreed by the two top admirals. Then the American presidency pushed, very secretly, the Kaiser to war in May 1914. France and Britain did not see the war coming.”[Note 1]

An anonymous Don Quixote named “Lionel” snapped: @ Patrice Ayme: “France and Britain did not see it coming etc!
And your sources to back up that astonishing bit of information are….? Suddenly a flat earth seems more probable.”

The Internet is all about quoting “sources“. Bacteria, individually are weak, and stupid, but they form bacterial mats or film, full of channels, and then they are hard to destroy, even with antibiotics. They are still stupid, but very strong as a mass.

Much of the Internet consists into morons linked to each other like bacterial films. Not only do Islamists networks and American neocretins organize themselves that way. In 2012 Wikipedia told Philip Roth that he was no authority on… Philip Roth; if he wanted to be taken seriously, about Philip Roth, he, Roth Philip, would have to quote sources on Philip Roth. It’s all about sources, not basic facts and elementary logic. It’s all about quoting those who, most often, have a perverse interest to spread disinformation.

The madness of the crowds is well known. The nastiness of crowds, even more striking, is a close relative. “Lionel” apparently subscribes to the well known disinformation that war was intrinsic to imperialism in general, and also to France, Britain, Germany. In other words World War One was not about a fascist Prussian plutocracy attacking democracy, it was about something else, whatever it is, denied by morons like me. Anything but the truth.

Indeed it’s rather inconvenient to observe that, in the most literate country, a fascist plutocracy could be so much in command of men’s hearts, that it could launch a world war as if it were a weekend excursion. And an entire nation would goose step behind. I replied this to his brutishness:

@ Lionel: Why do you need to insult me? I am a physicist, not a flat earth person.

That France and Britain did not see the attack of August 1914 coming is a historical fact. If they had seen it coming, they would have been more ready. That you do not know that they did not expect war does not make it less so, and does not give you a right to assault those who know, when you do not, by calling them morons.

Verily, the French Republic and Great Britain did not see the First World War coming. To wit:

Britain had “no army”. Lord Kitchener, recalled precipitously from Egypt, confirmed this in a famous joke, after being named Secretary for War. As he contemplated the seven British divisions. [Note 2.]

Great Britain was all into Irish problems, up to the end of July. Reading the British press of the times shows this. The entire British army in Europe, or in the world, consisted of the equivalent of just one French army corps.

France was expecting a war so little in the summer of 1914, that the entire French government was out on vacation. When it was clear the Prussians had ordered a full mobilization, and were going to attack, the under-secretary of agriculture in Paris had to decide, on his own, to order General Mobilization. Most of the French government was on a boat, incommunicado.

When the Prussians attacked, the surprise was so great that the Grande Duchesse du Luxembourg, not too clear about what was going on, put her large limousine across a bridge in a determined attempt to stop the Teutonic horde.

Even the Austrians were surprised when Berlin ordered them to declare war to the democracies. Vienna, horrified, resisted for several days the pressure from the Prussian General Staff (so much for the Sarajevo assassination being the direct cause of WWI; its role was mostly indirect, as the Austro-Hungarian heir was the closest friend to the Kaiser, and determined to keep the peace no matter what; once he was dead the greatest obstacle to Prussian militarism was gone).

It is not a strange thing when people who are completely ignorant hide their ignorance below insult and offense. Ignorance is one of the sins the Bible does not recognize. An unrecognized sin is a healthy sin, it can keep on devouring the spirit.

The failure to recognize ignorance for the sin it is makes the Christian moral system quaint, obsolete. Christianity makes ignorance into an innocence. It should not be, as Christ famously said while rubbing his behind: “Forgive them father, because they know not what they do!”

But it should be, now and thereafter: “Forgive them NOT, for protecting their crass ignorance below furious aggressivity, and leveraging their lack of knowledge into personal abuse.”

I am used to critters insulting me because their (lack of) knowledge, a precious flower they are cultivating, and that rose can only be defended by equating facticity to flat earth.

One should stop just searching for authority, and a hyperlink to it, instead of thinking by oneself. What’s my source for 1 +1 =2? I am sure some will ask malignantly. They got me there, I must confess my ignorance. I cannot provide with the “sources”. Sorry, it’s just something I know.

Anybody can access the British press archives of July 1914. Look at the front page of the Times of London, seven days before Earl Grey went to the House of Commons to request a war declaration against the fascist Reich.

A week earlier, the front page of the Times of London was all about Ireland (by then the fascist generals in Berlin had closed their trap, their plans were unfolding like clockwork. They had even sent the Kaiser away in vacation incommunicado, under false pretense, because they were afraid that His Majesty would stop them, after He realized the enormity of what was going to happen, namely a deliberate world war, and against the empire His own grandmother he admired so much, Queen Victoria, reigned over so long).

Yes, France and Britain did not see World War One coming, and it was a sneak deliberate attack. [Note 3 on Asia.]

Malevolent ignorant brutes are worse than malevolent knowledgeable brutes. Why? Because the ignorant ones think they are righteous, whereas the knowledgeable ones at least know that they are in the wrong. I also know that there are two types of ignorance: the one from happenstance, and the one from a willful cover-up, when ignorance itself is viewed as power, something to be desired that is deliberately cultivated, as the Little Prince does with his rose.

Why is ignorance so desired? Because the herd is ignorant, and welcomes only those so endowed. low mental power is cheap and comfortable. It just does not tolerate interruptions. A bonus is that those who stampede with the herd are mighty.

So far, though, real history, made of real facts, always won, in the end. All what’s left of the efforts of morons is that their little cover-ups and non sequiturs become themselves part of history.

So who invented the myth that the two democracies, France and Britain caused World War One, just as much the fascist Reich? Well, the same malevolent ones who created the myth that the Versailles Treaty caused Nazism… The same ones who are finding fascism superior to democracy, the same ones who much prefer plutocracy to our better angels. The same ones who feel that cruelty is how to get even, or even how to get ahead. The spiritual equivalent of bacterial film: strong, stupid, and nothing human about it.

Saint Paul and company were careful to incorporate the “Logos” within the core of Christianism. It’s also known as the “Verb” and “Holy Spirit”. They had too, lest the resistance of the Neo-Platonists to their fascist friendly superstition would be too great. But speech without knowledge is pure intellectual fascism. (And the fascist side is what seduced the Roman emperors in the version of Christianism they imposed.)

Verily, the essence of humanity is the generous striving for the truth. The Will to Truth is the core of the evolutionary morality hard wired into us, and no superstition can claim to be fully moral without it. [Note 4.]

***

Patrice Ayme

***

Note 1: Why was the Prussian General staff and German plutocracy so desirous of war? Their explicit reasoning was that time was working against Prussian fascism, when the ever more powerful French Republic was helping the quick democratization and industrialization of Russia. The admirals were against the war, because they knew the Royal Navy, especially with the French “Royale”, could not be defeated.

Note 2: Lord Kitchener, upon being named Secretary of War, August 1914: “No one can say my colleagues in the Cabinet are not courageous. They have no Army and they declared war against the mightiest military nation in the world.” Kitchener told a startled cabinet that the war would last at least three years, and that Britain needed to rise immediately a million man army. Kitchener died in combat, 22 months later, when his ship sank off Orkney after hitting a German mine.

Note 3: In the same vein, if some incident occurs in Asia, and a war starts, it will be because of the deliberate policy of China in search of a Lebensraum at sea. It will not be a bout whatever tiny incident will be construed as of great significance. And that, the Lebensraum, aggressivity-towards-others in turn will a repetition of the fascist plutocratic mental syndrome, in the German Second Reich style. I have long held to that theory, and I was pleased to see The Economist rolling it out on its front cover in September 2012. Complete with how little Chinese minds are molded into hatred. Same as little German minds, a century ago.

Note 4: Do I know what morality means? Yes. The word was coined by the (lawyer-Consul) courageous philosopher Cicero (later assassinated by one of Cleopatra’s boyfriends), from the Latin mos (gen. moris) “one’s disposition”. Certainly hundreds of millions of years of evolution have engraved our disposition.